State Journal: Big Brother wins; Small papers lose

A battle by several Ohio districts to block statewide electronic
collection of student records has been thwarted--for now.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently declined to review a lower court's
order that local school officials submit student information to a state
database. Several districts had sued, arguing that collecting students'
Social Security numbers, juvenile-court records, and socio-economic
characteristics violated the children's and their families'
privacy.

"A lot of parents don't even want the secretaries entering the data
to know about some of this," said Richard A. Denoyer, the
superintendent of the 7,000-student Princeton district, one of the
plaintiffs. Expect wary parents to take up the fight now, he
warned.

The state has scaled back its questioning since the first case was
filed nearly four years ago. But critics are still worried that a
student's secrets--a pregnancy, for example--could become public.

State education officials argue that they are bound by federal law
to collect some sensitive information. And, they said, their database
records aggregate statistics, not names.

An effort by South Dakota lawmakers to free localities from at least
one state mandate could mean the death knell for some small
newspapers.

School districts are now required to publish their spending reports
in newspapers. But a bill moving through the House could remove the
mandate and give local governments the option of either printing the
details in newspapers or making them available at libraries.

According to Rep. Jan Nicolay, who works as a Sioux Falls high
school principal, the current law costs her district $20,000 to $30,000
a year.

But Keith Jensen, the general manager of the South Dakota Newspaper
Association, disputed that figure and argued that publication of
spending practices helps taxpayers hold their school boards
accountable. The price, he said, adds up to a minuscule portion of a
district's budget.

Lola Schreiber, the chairwoman of the House Education Committee,
said the details of the proposal would not be known until this week.
Lawmakers voted down a similar bill in last year's legislative session,
fearing it might push some small papers out of business.

Drew Lindsay & Laura Miller

Vol. 14, Issue 19

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.